Creates a new entity record in a specified Dynamics 365 entity set using provided key-value data.
Create a new entity record in Dynamics 365
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The data for the new entity record as key-value pairs | |
| entitySet | Yes | Entity set name (plural form, e.g., "contacts", "accounts", "opportunities") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says a record is created but omits permissions, duplicate handling, validation behavior, side effects, and what happens on failure, which are important for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its limited content and immediately communicates the tool's core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested data object parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain required permissions, return behavior, error cases, or any operational context needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and examples for entitySet. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('entity record in Dynamics 365'), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as update_entity or delete_entity beyond the verb implying the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_entity, delete_entity, or execute_odata_query. Usage is only implied by the word 'Create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.